Standing Committee F

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Clause 2 - Introductory

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 86, in page 1, line 10, after 'Appeal', insert— 
'or Judge of the High Court'.'—[Lady Hermon.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Peter Pike: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 87, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
'( ) No order under subsection (2)(a) may add an office listed under subsection (1)(a).'
 No. 88, in schedule 1, page 70, line 4, leave out 'judge of the High Court.' 
 No. 128, in clause 5, page 4, line 4, after 'judicial offices', insert— 
'or the office of Judge of the High Court'.
 No. 135, in clause 6, page 5, line 31, leave out subsection (10). 
 No. 136, in clause 7, page 6, line 6, leave out subsection (7).

Des Browne: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. You had some flavour of the issues that the Committee will have to address when you chaired the Programming Sub-Committee this morning. Before lunch, your fellow Chairman expressed regret that he had to interrupt me in full flow. Perhaps you could pass my gratitude to him for interrupting me, because there is always more time, and he has given me an opportunity to reflect more carefully on what I was saying. I have revisited some of the reservations that I expressed this morning, and I no longer hold them.
 I have again considered the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), and I think that I now understand them better. I shall try to explain my understanding of them. I hope that she will bear with me and accept my apologies if my earlier comments reflected an incomplete understanding of the group. Perhaps I should ask her to confirm whether my understanding is now correct. 
 The intention of the amendments is to give High Court judges the same tenure as the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Justices of Appeal. My earlier comments attempted to draw out whether a change had been proposed to the appointments arrangements for High Court judges, but that does not seem to be so on reflection. Part of the reason for my comments—I have to give some excuse—is that the amendments 
 would not entirely achieve what the hon. Lady would like. That does not matter, as they allow us to debate the issue. 
 The hon. Lady appears to propose that High Court judges continue to be appointed by the commission, but that they continue to fall within the provisions of clause 6 on dismissal, along with the Lord Chief Justice and the appeal court judges. The amendments are not complete, as various consequential amendments would be needed to meet the hon. Lady's objectives, especially on appointment. That would involve the addition of the words ''and judges of the High Court'' at various places, but we need not concern ourselves too much about that. 
 At this stage, it would help if the hon. Lady would suggest in some way that I have a basic understanding of what she seeks to achieve. Whether or not she does so, I shall proceed. 
 The hon. Lady has accepted the proposed split on appointment, so I would be grateful if she would reconsider whether it would be more appropriate to be consistent on how the removal provisions were applied as well. The review's recommendation, which will be enacted in the Bill, is in line with Scotland, where appointments and removal to the equivalent level are devolved. Clause 6 differs from clause 7 in the way in which removals can be organised. In all cases, a tribunal needs to be established under the Bill to decide whether dismissal is appropriate. In the case of the Lord Chief Justice and the Appeal Court judges, there is an additional element to the proceedings. If the tribunal recommends dismissal, the matter also needs to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. 
 In a sense, that provides a greater level of protection. In practice, the different procedure reflects differences in the appointments process rather than the need for greater protection. The tribunal would still be the key element in proceedings. Given that Her Majesty appoints the most senior judges, it would not be appropriate to permit their removal without a vote of Parliament. 
 As I understand it, the hon. Lady is content that the appointments procedure for High Court judges should differ from that for the Lord Chief Justice and the Appeal Court judges. I hope that she agrees that the logical consequence of that is that they should also fall under the clause 7 provisions. The different process for removal is a reflection of the different process for appointment.

Lady Hermon: It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mr. Pike. I should like to explain to the Minister that I will later speak to amendment No. 126, but I am not sure whether I can speak about it in an intervention now.
 I was especially struck by what he said about the appointment to senior judicial offices. An ambiguity arises from the title of clause 4, which is 
Appointment to most senior judicial offices.

Peter Pike: Order. Interventions must be brief. The hon. Lady has referred to an amendment that we have not yet reached.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out. She knows, as do I, that although the title of the clause may be of assistance in interpreting it, one has to consider the clause itself to see its effect. Clause 4 deals appropriately with the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Justices of Appeal. New section 12A of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, which is proposed in clause 4, deals with the pre-devolution position.
 In any event, perhaps it is better to deal with amendment No. 126 when we come to it. We should concentrate on the group of amendments under discussion.

Peter Pike: That would be helpful.

Des Browne: Considering the amendments in totality, we accept that there should be a difference between the appointment of judges on the list in schedule 1 and the most senior judicial appointments. For ease of debate, I shall refer to the former group as being devolved.
 The hon. Lady seems to have moved judges of the High Court into the same position as that of the most senior judges, in terms of the provisions that relate to their removal in certain restricted circumstances. I am trying to simplify the Government's position, as it is simple, essentially. If the appointment is devolved, the process for removal has to reflect that appointment and be devolved. The fact that the appointment of the most senior judges is at the hands of Her Majesty means that their removal has to be different from the devolved process, and has to involve a motion before both Houses. That is the reason for the difference, not because some view has been taken of the importance of the judges, although some are clearly in more senior positions than others. If she accepts that a devolved process of appointment is appropriate, a devolved process of removal is also appropriate.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clarify one point? Is it possible for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, acting jointly under subsection (2), to add the office of judge of the High Court?

Des Browne: I was coming to that. It is appropriate for me to repeat the position that I outlined this morning in dealing with another amendment.
 Amendment No. 87 is designed to prevent the First Minister and Deputy First Minister from using their power to make orders under subsection (2) to bring the offices of High Court judge, Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice of Appeal into the remit of the Judicial Appointments Commission. For the reasons that I set out this morning and that I repeat, the Government's position is that, as the Bill is framed, the amendment is unnecessary. 
 The review's policy was not to extend devolution to the most senior posts. I accept that, and that is what we are trying to reflect. Because of the way in which the Bill is structured, any order made under clause 2 would require a cross-community vote under clause 82(2)(a), and the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. Our position is that the safeguards are sufficient to prevent any disruption of the review's policy in the context of the Bill. 
 I accept that there is the theoretical possibility of an order, as the hon. Lady suggests, and I undertake that we will consider further whether a clarifying amendment would be helpful. However, I would argue that it would not add anything to the Bill other than to clarify the existing position. If the hon. Lady is reassured by that explanation, and if she can bring herself substantially to ignore some of what I said this morning, I hope that she can be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Garnier: I am genuinely trying to be helpful. It may be that because I was not here immediately before the Committee adjourned I missed the answer to the question that I am about to ask the Minister.
 Appointments made under schedule 1 are described as devolved and other higher appointments may be described as Whitehall appointments. Has the Minister explained the logic of placing judges of the High Court on the devolved list as opposed the Whitehall list? Is there some magic to that decision? It may well be that the Minister has already explained that and it is my fault for not having heard him.

Des Browne: The review recommended that the new Judicial Appointments Commission should appoint all judges up to and including High Court judges. It did so by implicitly drawing the comparison that I drew earlier with the cut-off point in the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly Scotland. Other international considerations were taken into account. As I said this morning, the review considered it appropriate for the devolved mechanism to apply to that level and the Government agree with its conclusions.
 Principally, the review made the recommendation in the context of the totality of its recommendations and for the purposes of consistency with the way in which devolution operates in Scotland. If I remember correctly, in pre-devolution days, when the Secretary of State exercised some of the powers involved, the division between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister occurred at the High Court judge level. I may be wrong about that, but that is roughly how the division works now, under devolution.

Crispin Blunt: I welcome you to the Chair for this afternoon's sitting, Mr. Pike. However, I somewhat regret the fact that the Minister had the opportunity for a break because I am more confused now than I was before, although I thought that I understood the position before lunch.
 I shall set out the official Opposition's position on devolution and related matters. We agree with the review and with the Government on the recommendations. It is appropriate for judges of the High Court to fall within the devolved structure and within the remit of the Judicial Appointments Commission. Therefore, they should be covered by the concomitant recommendations about tenure and the ability to remove them from office. Later in our proceedings, we will come to the issue that is slightly confusing—and on which I have tabled amendments to clause 4—the appointment of judges to the High Court, Her Majesty's involvement in appointments 
 and the consequences for the role of this House and another place. I agree with the Minister that that will be the most appropriate time to deal with those issues. 
 I agree with the Minister—in fact, I was delighted to hear him say this—that there is merit in promoting consistency across the devolved structures in the United Kingdom, as that will make it much easier for people to understand exactly which functions are exercised by the devolved administrations and which are reserved for what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) called Whitehall appointments in respect of the judiciary. 
 The Minister explained the purpose of amendment No. 128 before lunch, and I agree with the way in which he defined that. I just thought that it was appropriate to put on record the principle that underlies the Opposition's approach, a principle that also guides us in relation to other amendments that we shall discuss later.

Lady Hermon: I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The Minister has been helped by his lunch and I appreciate the explanation that he has given. However, I remain unhappy that senior appointments—seven High Court judges—will not be classified with the offices of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lords Justices of Appeal. I shall not press my amendment to a vote but perhaps the Government will reconsider the matter before Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Des Browne: The clause sets out the offices that are covered by the clauses dealing with judicial appointment and the removal of judges after devolution of justice functions. The clauses will be considered in more detail later, but clause 2 sets the scene for the important recommendations of the review regarding the appointment and removal of the Lord Chief Justice, the Lords Justices of Appeal and any other office listed in schedule 1. That list of offices may be amended by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister after devolution of justice functions with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. As we shall presently examine the clauses that deal with those matters in more depth, I urge the Committee to approve the clause.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Listed judicial offices

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 70, line 9, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 57, in page 70, line 9, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.
 Amendment No. 43, in clause 3, page 2, line 43, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'. 
 Amendment No. 58, in schedule 3, page 76, line 8, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'. 
 Amendment No. 59, page 76, line 11, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'. 
 Clause 9 stand part. 
 Amendment No. 45, in clause 11, page 9, line 11, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'. 
 Amendment No. 61, in schedule 4, page 82, line 31, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'. 
 Amendment No. 62, page 83, line 7, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'. 
 Amendment No. 63, page 83, line 11, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'. 
 Amendment No. 64, page 84, line 18, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'. 
 Amendment No. 65, page 84, line 23, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'. 
 Amendment No. 66, page 84, line 28, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'. 
 Amendment No. 67, in schedule 5, page 85, line 22, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'. 
 Amendment No. 46, in clause 15, page 10, line 22, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'. 
 Amendment No. 47, page 10, line 23, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'. 
 Amendment No. 48, page 10, line 24, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'. 
 Amendment No. 49, page 10, line 25, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'. 
 Amendment No. 50, page 10, line 26, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'. 
 Amendment No. 51, page 10, line 29, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'. 
 Amendment No. 52, page 10, line 30, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'. 
 Amendment No. 53, page 10, line 31, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'. 
 Amendment No. 54, page 10, line 34, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'. 
 Amendment No. 55, in clause 19, page 12, line 26, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'. 
 Amendment No. 68, in schedule 6, page 87, line 28, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'. 
 Amendment No. 69, page 87, line 29, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Crispin Blunt: This long list of amendments relates to the nomenclature of magistrates and proposes replacing ''District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)'' with the term ''Resident Magistrates''. I had hoped that the list was comprehensive, but I understand that it might not be, and a few more amendments will be required to tidy the matter up if the Government are minded to accept the alteration.
 When the review body sat, there was no controversy about the name of resident magistrates. However, the review body took it upon itself to come to the following conclusion, in paragraph 6.142. It is worth reading it out as a classic example of the bureaucratic tidy mind at work. 
We have a further recommendation to make which is intended to demonstrate publicly that the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary. In looking at the titles of the various tiers of judiciary, we gave some thought to the nomenclature of resident magistrates.
 Having got that far, it is worth noting that at no stage does the review report anybody expressing any concern about the nomenclature of resident magistrates in the course of their work. It continued: 
As we note in the next chapter, the term 'resident' has its origins in the nineteenth century when there were particular reasons for wanting office holders to live in the district where they held office. It has no meaning or relevance in the modern context. Moreover, we think that there is an opportunity, through a name change, to demonstrate publicly that the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary. We recommend that legislation be passed to redesignate resident magistrates as district judges (magistrates' courts) . . . We favour retention of the term magistrates' court as it is commonly understood and reflected in a very large number of legislative provisions.
 As we have seen from the number of amendments that are needed to the Bill to implement the renaming of resident magistrates, the term is widely used and well understood in Northern Ireland, not least by the profession itself. 
 The view of the resident magistrates should be the determinant as far as the view of the Committee is concerned. In their latest submission to the Minister they say: 
The majority of Resident Magistrates maintain their objection to the change of name. We made a number of points re same on two visits to the Review Commission and also made written submissions. We understand from our other sources that part of the reasoning for change is similar to that in England and Wales (ie Section 78 of the Access to Justice Act 1999), which was to more fully recognise the status of stipendiary magistrates as members of the professional Judiciary.
It is the view of the Association that in Northern Ireland that our status and indeed our key role in the professional Judiciary particularly over the last 30 years has always been fully recognised.
 So there is no concern from the people who would be the supposed victims of the situation that their roles are not understood. The other reason why I would urge the Government to give serious consideration to the amendments is that the term ''Resident Magistrate'' is not only one that is widely understood among the legal profession, it is also one that, in terms of pre-partition Ireland, has a literary meaning, initially through the successful book ''Some Experiences of an Irish R.M.'' which was subsequently dramatised as a television series. People are immensely familiar with that piece of Irish literature. Some might say that my sympathy for retaining the name results from the fact that the hero of the book—a Major Sinclair Yeates, who narrates the stories—is described in the ''Oxford Companion to Irish Literature'' as one who 
combines the wide-eyed naivety of the straightforward Englishman abroad—
 that is sometimes how I feel when dealing with Northern Ireland legislative matters— 
with a tolerant and fun-loving disposition—
 I shall allow others to make that judgment— 
equipping him perfectly for the rough-and-tumble of the Irish village.
 It may also be said that the Minister fits the role of the major's friend and inveterate antagonist Flurry Knox. The Minister and I may be antagonists in Committee and on the Floor of the House, but I regard him as a friend just as Knox and the major were friends. We have both been members of several Standing Committees, and I have come to know him extremely well. 
 The literary reason for retaining a name is worth while because of the culture that surrounds the judiciary. It is not necessary to change the name; it is well understood in Northern Ireland. The resident magistrates themselves want to keep the name. Although resident means that the magistrates are required to be resident in a particular place, I also take it to mean permanent—which is precisely what it is. I hope that the Government look kindly upon the amendments.

Edward Garnier: I agree with the conclusion reached by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). I am only sorry that the English equivalent, the stipendiary magistrates, did not take a similar view. When we were debating the equivalent clauses of the Bill that became the Access to Justice Act 1999, we all knew what a stipendiary magistrate was. They knew what they were, and they and the legal profession knew what their job was, and there seemed to be no need to change a familiar and understandable job description—or, to use the nomenclature of the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, there was no need to change it at all.
 I was about to go into battle on behalf of the stipendiary magistrates when I was told that they wanted to change their name, so for once, the wind was taken out of my sails. They wanted to be called 
 district judges because they wanted to be able to say that were members of the judiciary; they did not want to be confused—no one I know would ever have confused them—with what they thought of as ordinary lay magistrates. They now have what they want, and I am sure that they will greatly enjoy the change of name. 
 One of my colleagues at the Bar rather waggishly thought that Queen's bench masters who work in a long corridor in the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand had put it about that they wanted now to be called ''corridor judges'' because they, too, could enjoy the excitement of being members of the judiciary. However, it turned out to be a little joke. It seems that Queen's bench masters are happy to remain Queen's bench masters. 
 I tell you these rather unexciting stories, Mr. Pike, simply to say how pleased I am about the information given to us by my hon. Friend that the resident magistrates want to remain resident magistrates. If stipendiaries want to become district judges, and have their names changed by statute, let us do the same for Northern Ireland. If RMs want to remain RMs, let them remain so.

Lembit Öpik: The Bill proposes a change in name. It is worth remembering that a strong justification for that exists. Paragraph 6.142 of the review of the criminal justice system recommended the name change. I apologise if the matter has already been covered. Such was the shock of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) that she virtually choked as she listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech. She has made a full recovery, I am glad to say.

Crispin Blunt: For the record, I would like to point out that I was not actually speaking when the hon. Lady left the Room incommoded.

Lembit Öpik: My hon. Friend was anticipating the hon. Gentleman's speech, and felt it safer to wait outside. I say these things in jest, but I know from painful experience that irony translates badly in the record.
 As I said, paragraph 6.142 of the report recommended the name change. It states: 
We have a further recommendation to make which is intended to demonstrate publicly that the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary. In looking at the titles of the various tiers of the judiciary we gave some thought to the nomenclature of resident magistrates. As we note in the next chapter, the term ''resident'' has its origins in the nineteenth century when there were particular reasons for wanting office holders to live in the district where they held office. It has no meaning or relevance in the modern context. Moreover we think that there is an opportunity, through a name change, to demonstrate publicly that the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary. We recommend that legislation be passed to redesignate resident magistrates as district judges (magistrates' courts). We favour retention of the term magistrates' court as it is commonly understood and reflected in a very large number of legislative provisions.
 Therefore, the proposals reflect faithfully the recommendations of the review of the criminal justice system. 
 This would not be the first occasion on which an organisation has renamed itself to stay with the times. Who can ignore the fact, for example, that the hon. Gentleman's party used to be called the Tory party and changed its name to the Conservatives, just as Windscale renamed itself Sellafield?

Crispin Blunt: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to point out that ''the Tory party'' has always been a nickname, inherited not least from the bandits who inhabited Tory island off the north coast of Ireland. It was a term of abuse. However, the name ''Conservative'' has been used consistently since the forming of the modern Conservative party, which is not something that can be said for the Labour party.

Lembit Öpik: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because it was a cheap one-liner and I deserved the rebuke. However, let us remember that no great benefit results from sticking to names that could be regarded as being slightly problematic.

Shona McIsaac: Like the Liberal Democrats?

Lembit Öpik: Indeed, as hon. Members know, we changed our name when parties merged to reflect more accurately who we were—until we got it right, which we have.
 Let us move swiftly on. Government Members sagely point to the unstoppable evolution of the Liberal Democrats as the party of the 21st century, and the review of the criminal justice system suggests that a similar change should be made to a name. The practical justification for changing the name, in simple terms, is to make the body more accessible, as the new words are more user friendly for the public, who actually use and interface with the system. That is a matter of judgment, but we feel that the change would be small but useful, and should not cause the slightest concern about the abandonment of tradition.

Edward Garnier: I apologise, Mr. Pike, for what is probably an unnecessary intervention. However, I worry when the Liberal Democrats use words such as ''user friendly'' and ''accessible'' in relation to the matters that we are discussing. Next, they will be asking for members of the judiciary to sit in workshops and deal with people in tents. The hon. Gentleman's arguments are interesting and amusing, and all the other adjectives that one can apply to the party that he represents, but we all know what an RM is. The RMs know what an RM is and the public of Northern Ireland are wholly familiar with the expression. Surely, it is essential that we do not change that which there is no need to change.

Lembit Öpik: That is a matter for the Committee to decide. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's optimism that the existing terminology is regarded as more attractive than the proposed terminology, but let us not make heavy weather—[Interruption.] or heavier weather, of the issue. The recommendation has been made and argued for rationally. The Government have taken account of the recommendation in their work and, for that reason, the Liberal Democrats believe that it is common sense.

Seamus Mallon: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. We have had a most interesting discussion on a serious decision. I share the literary nostalgia of Somerville and Ross. I do not quite see the resemblance between the Minister and Flurry Knox, but perhaps I will discover the resemblance before the next three weeks are up.
 There is a fundamental point here. I have nothing against the term ''resident magistrate'', but why was the term ever invented in the 19th century? I do not purport to know but I will hazard a guess. It was because, like everything else at that time, there were not only absentee landlords but, absentee judges, who did not live in Northern Ireland and seldom, if ever, went there. As a device to ensure that there was some semblance of identity with the populace, the requirement for residency was introduced. I may be wrong and that may be fanciful, but I venture to suggest that it is right. Why was that required? That question goes to the heart of our deliberations in Committee. 
 When the term was invented and, indeed, when Somerville and Ross wrote about the Irish RM, there was no judiciary in the current sense. There was big house justice, not justice of the people, for the people, by the people, or anything verging on that. The judiciary was exclusive, not in capability but in status. I have nothing against the term ''resident magistrate'' but I have a lot against the concept of a judiciary reserved for one section of the community. I am not talking about Catholics and Protestants or Unionists and Nationalists but about big house inhabitants having the preserve on the process of justice. We must get away from that because it goes to the heart of many of the problems associated with the justice system.

Crispin Blunt: I have been trying to find the reference in the review to the background to RMs, but I have failed, so I shall have to paraphrase. One of the key roles of resident magistrates was to counteract the perceived bias of the lay magistracy. The resident magistrate, who had to be a qualified barrister or solicitor, was introduced in order to address precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. The history of resident magistrates, in terms of addressing the issues about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, is on the side of the angels. It is, perhaps, another argument in favour of retaining the term.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. However nostalgic we are, if we are to look at this anew, for the sake of the ordinary person—and we must use him as our touchstone, because the law belongs to the ordinary person, not to the resident magistrate or the corridor judge or whatever they want to call themselves—we must use new terms for a new approach and a new attitude to the whole process of the administration of justice. I can understand why resident magistrates want to continue with their title. I can understand why other terminologies would be attractive. However, as a lay person, I know what a judge is and I know that he is there to perform a specific role. I also know that there is a hierarchy among judges and I can understand that people looking at a justice system can understand that. It is
 important that we recognise the newness of what we are trying to do. If we start bringing old terminology or nostalgia into it, for whatever reason, we are not helping.
 I support the Government. They are right to go for a new start and to give the position the right name. A judge is a judge is a judge, whatever fancy name is given to him or her—a point that we shall cover soon. I hope that the new name will hold. It is right that it should, because it does something more fundamental than any of the arguments that I or other hon. Members have made. It goes to the heart of identification with a system of justice that has probably never been fully in place—certainly not in the community where I live and which I represent—since the state was founded. If we are going to get there, let us have a new start and let us have it on the basis of terminology that has no hang ups; I repeat that I have no hang ups. I, too, am very attracted to the Somerville and Ross novels. I think that I saw every television episode of ''The Irish R.M.'' I can live, sometimes, with the patronisation in it and I can tolerate the stage Irishness that was sometimes expressed by Flurry Knox and others. However, I do not want to live with any residue of big house justice at a time when we should be creating a completely new system.

Lady Hermon: I regret to find myself in disagreement once again with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). First, on the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, these are recommendations to the Government. They are not set in stone. A recommendation does not have to be accepted unless the arguments for it carry weight. Change for change's sake, as a cosmetic exercise, should not be welcomed by the Committee. If the provision changed the substance of the work of resident magistrates, I might agree with it, but just to change their title, in what appears to be a cosmetic exercise, should not be countenanced. The resident magistrates are in favour of continuing with their current title, and I wonder to what extent the Minister consulted them before making this proposal.

Des Browne: I have not read the books referred to, nor indeed, to my recollection, have I seen any of the television programmes. I may have done, but if I did, they did not impress themselves on me. I prefer, for obvious reasons, which I will come to, the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on whether I fit the character of Flurry Knox, because she tells me that Flurry Knox—

Crispin Blunt: Perhaps I can help the Minister.

Des Browne: Perhaps I can help myself, first; then we will see whether I need any further help.
 I am told that Flurry Knox is a rogue and is always up to some mischief or other, constantly in trouble and always has a scam—I can live with that. I am told that he is also a master of foxhounds—I cannot live with that. I would not like it to go uncontradicted that I would allow myself to be compared to a master of foxhounds. Further, I am told that he is married to a beautiful woman—I can live with that. I am told that 
 he gets his friend, the hapless English magistrate, into all sorts of bother, so that the locals can take advantage of him. If the hon. Member for Reigate wishes to live with the description of the hapless English gentleman, I am quite happy to live with the bulk of the description of Flurry Knox, although I may have to defend myself against some elements of it. 
 I am grateful for the support given to the amendments by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh. I feel slightly embarrassed about what I am going to say about both of them. The amendments concern the Bill's provisions to rename resident magistrates as district judges (magistrates courts). All hon. Members have, to some degree, understood the reasons for this recommendation from the review. 
 My hon. Friend arrived at his view of the history of the position of resident magistrate from his knowledge of the matter, but shares that view with the review. I do not think that anybody has any objection to the continued use of the name, although both the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and my hon. Friend expressed views on the importance of change, which I will come to in a moment. 
 Essentially, although we are discussing several amendments, there is only one substantive amendment in the group—No. 44, which deletes clause 9, thereby retaining the title of resident magistrate. The rest of the group are consequential on that amendment. 
 The Bill's provisions follow the review recommendation, which was intended to demonstrate publicly that the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary. I have said, and no doubt will say on several occasions in this Committee, that it is my intention, where possible, to follow the recommendations of the review. However, the content of this debate has made it clear that some of the recommendations are more important and symbolic than others. 
 I do not get the sense that this issue will divide the community of Northern Ireland, but the reasons why the review recommended it are set out. The review concluded that the term ''resident'' had no meaning or relevance in a modern context, as there was no particular reason for wanting officeholders to live in the district in which they held office. Its recommendation was also designed to bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales, where the title of stipendiary magistrate has also been phased out. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough made the important point that stipendiary magistrates in England and Wales were keen to embrace the change for whatever reason, which was important for the acceptance of that recommendation. Whether others regret it or not is of little importance. 
 In my experience, the adjective ''resident'' is often attached to judges. It does not necessarily mean in the modern context that the judge lives in the jurisdiction, but that he or she is the regular judge in that court. It differentiates that judge from a circuit judge or temporary judge. People often use the term more 
 loosely and not as accurately as this as an adjective for judges. I am not certain that it has the same meaning for ordinary people that it may have had when it was attached to magistrates, when resident magistrates were introduced. 
 The arguments that I rehearsed in short from the review and those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh have considerable merit. However, as the hon. Member for North Down said, the recommendations are not written in stone, and once the Government have considered them, they must take responsibility for deciding whether they should be translated into legislation and implemented. The Government therefore listened to the views that were raised during the two consultation periods on the review. They presented a mixed message. Although some agreed with the recommendation, some, not least members of the Resident Magistrates' Association, expressed their opposition to it. The Resident Magistrates' Association opposed the name change, pointing to the long history of the resident magistrate in Northern Ireland and his longer history in Ireland more generally. We accept that there is a growing strength of feeling that the name should be retained, not least as expressed in the submission from the Resident Magistrates' Association that was received on 10 January after the Bill was introduced. Neither we nor anyone else who supports the Government's settled view intend to cause any offence to resident magistrates. There was never any intention to cause such offence or to remove a name that has been synonymous with effective justice that has been applied evenly over many years. 
 It may be appropriate at this point to say a few words about the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh about the importance of change and symbols of change when change takes place. I agree with him that, for there to be a fresh start, it is sometimes important to show that it is a fresh start and that people can leave baggage from the past behind. 
 A significant number of judges are listed in the schedule and in clause 2, but interestingly, the only change is in relation to resident magistrates. It is not as if the change is one among several; it is the only change that the review proposed. Members of the review panel may have argued this had they chosen to, but the change was not proposed to benefit the modernisation of the justice system, but to clarify the status in the judicial pecking order of resident magistrates by calling them judges, and doing away with an adjective that has lost any current sense or relevance. 
 Given that there appears to be growing support for the retention of the name, the Government are prepared to reconsider the amendment. We are not prepared to accept it today, because several technical amendments not included in the group might need to be made. The Government want to go back to consultees, especially those who have taken an interest in the matter and have supported the change, to clarify our interpretation of their views and to engage with them about the process. That is good manners, apart from anything else. I turn to look at 
 my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh as I say that, given his contribution to the debate.

Seamus Mallon: I should be interested if the Minister would inform us from where the weight of opinion in favour of the term ''resident magistrate'' has come. I suspect that it has not come from the populace at large, but I do not know. The Minister is obviously aware of where the pressure has come from. In the past two or three years I have discussed the subject, pending legislation, with many people, and the change did not keep anyone awake at night to the extent that would suggest a Government change of position.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend's point has been made in another guise in Committee. The provisions of the criminal justice review may not have captured the imagination of the man on the Newry omnibus, but it does not alter the fact that our consultees have expressed a view on the subject. I made special reference to the Resident Magistrates' Association and the importance of the stipendiary magistrates position in England and Wales in relation to the proposed change of name. Some consultees have expressed no view one way or another.
 Off the top of my head, I cannot remember the position in consultation of the party represented by my hon. Friend. I would not be surprised, and it would probably not surprise him, if its submission made no reference to the name change at all. I am not entitled to interpret from that that it was supportive or neutral about it. There is growing pressure from a number of discrete sources on the issue, but a number of discrete sources have contributed to the consultation in any event. The Resident Magistrates' Association made its submission, in which it set out the clear argument for the retention, after the Bill was tabled. 
 The amendments give me the opportunity to suggest that the Government are prepared to reconsider the issue, go back to people in the time available and give them an opportunity to engage with us on the issue in the changed circumstances. I accept that the issue is not exactly earth shattering, but if it will not be to the detriment of the administration of justice to do so, it is appropriate for the Government to take into account the position of those who hold the title and discuss their views with others. I understand that several consultees expressed support for the change. We should return and engage with them. If issues additional to those raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh are relevant to the Committee, we should hear about them. 
 On the understanding that we will look further into the issues again later, I ask the hon. Member for Reigate to withdraw the amendment. 
Mr. Blunt rose—

Peter Pike: Order. Before I call Mr. Blunt, I want to clarify the position. The Minister referred to amendment No. 44—a delete clause amendment—which is not selected. Clause 9 stand part is, however,
 included within this debate. When we reach that stage, we will take a formal vote but not debate it.

Des Browne: I am grateful for that clarification, Mr. Pike. I was just pointing out that amendment No. 44 was the principal amendment and that the rest were consequential. The deletion of the clause causes all the other consequences, although it is not being debated in this group.

Peter Pike: The Minister is absolutely right. We are debating clause stand part with this group. The amendment is not selected, but the principle behind it is.

Crispin Blunt: I am not entirely sure that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne for her literary knowledge. However, the Minister was gracious enough to accept the description—other than the master of foxhounds, which I thought had merit—allotted him, so I should assume to myself the description of a hapless English gentleman. I was not suggesting that the Minister was really like the character; I was interested in the characterisation of the relationship between Flurry Knox and Major Yates—the friendship and the inveterate antagonism across the Floor.
 I welcome the Minister's looking further into the issue with an open mind. It is quite proper for him to talk again to consultees. The issue was raised by resident magistrates and was in a sense created by the review, which I regret. Had it been left well alone, no one would have raised any objection. Changing the name does not take matters any further. 
 The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is slightly embarrassed by his enthusiastic lapdog loyalty to the Government. Had he been present when I introduced the amendments, he would have noticed that I read out precisely the part of the review that he read out—only I did so to mock it as an example of bureaucracy gone mad and he did so to laud it and pray it in aid. I shall leave it to the Committee and the wider world to establish which clause in the report is most appropriate.

Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for teaching me humility once again.

Crispin Blunt: I am getting used to the fact that we are all learning that.

Tony McWalter: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the conjectural history outlined by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh regarding the origin of the expression ''resident magistrate'' might turn out to be real history? That would provide a major argument against retaining that term.

Crispin Blunt: If that turned out to be correct and resident magistrates were regarded with outrage throughout the history of jurisprudence in Ireland, there would be no point in retaining it. I believe, however, that the reverse was the case and that the role of resident magistrates was to deal with concerns about the administration of justice in late 19th century Ireland. As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, we might justify retaining the name because of the principle of the
 independence of the judiciary for which magistrates stood when the administration of justice was even more controversial than it is today.

Edward Garnier: The Minister has made a valuable contribution to judicial history in Northern Ireland, and I hope that if the Government retain their current position on Report, my Front Bench colleagues will ensure that we have time to re-argue the point. Many amendments and huge tranches of the Bill are often left undebated on Report because we are guillotined into a tight timetable. I would not want the Government to lead us into a trap of our own making, which is to lull us into a sense of security and return on Report having done nothing but without giving us any time to register a complaint. I am positive that this Minister, of all Ministers, would not think of behaving like that, but unfortunately he does not control the timetable. Others who are not here may take a different view about the use of the time. I put that point up for consideration while we are happily engaged in agreement with the Government.

Crispin Blunt: I thank my hon. and learned Friend. That is one of the consequences of the extremely tight programme under which we will have to consider the points, but I know that the Minister said that he wants to revisit this discussion, and I take it that the Government's intention is now to retain the name of resident magistrates unless the Minister is convinced otherwise following his consultations.
 The default position is that the Government will introduce amendments, and they have more resources than me to ensure that they are comprehensive and technically correct. I thank the Minister for his attitude and open mind, which is appreciated on the Opposition Benches. We hope sincerely that we can continue Committee proceedings in the spirit with which we have discussed these amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 3 - Judicial Appointments Commission

Lembit Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in page 2, line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) five persons nominated by the Lord Chief Justice and appointed by the First and deputy First minister, acting jointly (referred to in this section and Schedule 2 as ''judicial members''), 
 (c) a barrister nominated by the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland and a solicitor nominated by the Law Society of Northern Ireland and appointed by the First and deputy First Minister, acting jointly (so referred to as ''legal profession members''), and 
 (d) five persons who do not hold (and have never held) a protected judicial office and are not (and have never been) barristers or solicitors, appointed by the Secretary of State (so referred to as ''lay members''); 
 and a reference in Schedule 2 to a non-judicial member is to a member who is either a legal profession member or a lay member.'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 141, in page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (5).
 No. 2, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'five' and insert 'six'. 
 No. 3, in page 2, line 34, leave out 'five' and insert 'four'. 
 No. 4, in page 2, line 34, leave out '(and have never held)'. 
 No. 5, in page 2, line 35, leave out from 'office' to '(so'. 
 No. 142, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'First Minister and deputy First Minister' and insert— 
'Secretary of State'.
 No. 146, in schedule 2, page 71, line 32, leave out from 'the' to end of line 33 and insert— 
'Secretary of State'.
 No. 149, in schedule 2, page 71, line 34, leave out from 'The' to 'may' and insert— 
'Secretary of State'.

Lembit Öpik: Life is a boomerang. My unkind remarks about the hon. Member for Reigate and the Tory party have caused a generous compensation to arise from the Government. I simply warn the Minister that he must brace himself for a more cautious approach before we support him, as I am abandoned on an island of integrity as the Government sway one way and the other. That is the price that I pay for unwittingly repeating the hon. Member for Reigate, and not in jest.
 In that context and in the spirit of listening that the Government have adopted, I hope that the Minister will listen seriously to the reasons why we have introduced the amendments. The rationale for the amendments is straightforward, and they all relate to the Judicial Appointments Commission. I raised the issue on Second Reading and explained that the Liberal Democrats are unhappy that the Bill allows the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to appoint the lay members of the commission. We are concerned that that contravenes the report's recommendation that the appointments process must clearly be seen to be insulated from political influence. Safeguarding the independence of the judiciary is of singular importance to the review of the criminal justice system; we discussed that at some length earlier. The lay members of the Judicial Appointments Commission cannot afford to be seen as political appointees. 
 We suggested two ways to get round the problem, although only one has been selected for debate. It is contained in amendments Nos. 140 and 141, which specify that the Lord Chief Justice would nominate five judicial members to the commission, and that the Bar Council and Law Society would each nominate a member. Those seven members will be appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as provided for in the Bill. However, the Secretary of State would appoint the lay members. That is not ideal; it means that the appointment of lay members is slightly further removed from those who are directly elected by the people of Northern Ireland. 
 We recognise that the amendment is complicated, in that part of the commission would be appointed by the 
 First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the other part by the Secretary of State. We accept that the Minister and the Government may find a more elegant solution to the issue; nevertheless, there is an issue. We put forward a separate set of proposals in amendment No. 151, which has not been called, to exclude particular categories of people from selection on the basis of a potential conflict of interest. We made the proposal to illustrate that there is more than one way to resolve the problem. 
 Fundamentally, our concern harks back to the issue that we discussed at the beginning of the sitting about the independence of the judiciary. Incidentally, we are not sympathetic to amendment No. 3, which decreases the number of lay members from five to four, because we believe that that number would not adequately represent the various strands in the population of Northern Ireland. Almost by definition, it would be difficult to achieve a true cross-section. I would genuinely welcome comments on the amendments from other hon. Members. 
 I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the amendments and, more fundamentally, the issue that they raise. I hope that the Government are willing to give it some consideration, either by accepting our amendments or by giving a reassurance that we will revisit it in the time available between now and Report.

Crispin Blunt: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has come forward with the construction, because it runs against the principle of devolution of justice. If Parliament is to give power to the Secretary of State to devolve justice at a time of his choosing—I hope that that will be with the agreement of Parliament; we will discuss that under a later amendment—it must be a concern if the Liberal Democrats are not prepared to trust the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to run a devolved justice system and appoint the lay and judicial members of the Judicial Appointments Commission. For the time being—until he is appointed to the House of Lords—the Secretary of State is an elected politician, as are the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. On the basis of the principle that justice should be devolved, which is the position of the official Opposition—I do not think that it is an issue across the parties—I am unable to support the hon. Gentleman's amendments.

Lembit Öpik: Let me stress, first, that the amendment is not designed to cast aspersions on the politicians of Northern Ireland, but to ensure a clear distinction between the judiciary and politicians. Secondly, I am somewhat confused because on Second Reading the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) felt that we were shifting away from the Crown being the head of these matters towards a Northern Ireland context. They made great play of that, so is the hon. Gentleman now arguing that it does not apply to the amendments?

Crispin Blunt: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be Ministers of the Crown as part of the
 devolved Administration within the realm of the United Kingdom. The Crown remains central to the functions of the devolved Administrations, whether in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, as it does within the United Kingdom as a whole. The hon. Gentleman's argument does not apply.
 Let me turn to the amendments, which are in two groups. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 deal with the membership of the Judicial Appointments Commission and propose a rebalancing of the numbers; and the others deal with the qualifications of lay members. 
 The numbers suggested in the review as appropriate to secure a balance on the commission were not prescriptive. The review's conclusion, stated in paragraph 6.103 was: 
As for membership of the Commission, we envisage a strong judicial representation drawn from all tiers of the judiciary (including a representative of the lay magistracy) and nominated for appointment by the Lord Chief Justice after consultation with each of those tiers. The Lord Chief Justice or his nominee would chair the Commission. In line with practice elsewhere, there would be one representative nominated by the Law Society and one by the Bar Council. In total the Commission might consist of around five judicial members, two from the professions and four or five lay members.
 So, according to the review, no precise figure for membership is recommended. The overriding principle—it is reflected in the review—is that the judiciary must be appointed on merit. 
 The balance of the commission as set out in the Bill is weighted in the wrong direction, particularly regarding qualifications. I want to rebalance and reweigh it by having six judicial members and four lay members on the commission. An additional benefit of having six judicial members is that it allows for the representation of one layer of the judiciary currently unrepresented in the Bill—the deputy county court judges, of which there are 40. That idea found favour in the review. 
 I realise that I have jumped to amendment No. 6, Mr. Pike, but it is appropriate to debate it here, because if this group of amendments were not accepted, amendment No. 6 would necessarily fall.

Des Browne: It is not just a question of numbers, but tiers of the judiciary, and deputy county court judges are in the same tier as county court judges. That tier is already reflected—in line with the recommendations in the review and the Bill's provisions—in the membership of the commission.

Crispin Blunt: From my reading of the Bill, I am not sure that the Minister has been properly directed. Clause 3(6) says that judicial members ''are to be'', but it says nothing about deputy county court judges being part of a tier. It is a matter of definition whether a county court judge is a county court judge, on which I turn to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough for assistance.

Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend may turn to me, but whether he gets any assistance is another matter.
 It strikes me that a county court judge is likely to hold the appointment of county court judge. A deputy 
 county court judge does not hold that appointment, but sits as a county court judge from time to time. It may be, and is often the case, that a deputy county court judge is a barrister or solicitor who is appointed to hold the office of deputy county court judge from time to time, or a resident magistrate who is being tried out to see if he is up to being a full-time county court judge. It is a question of numbers. I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend for longer than the Chairman permits, but I suspect that if there are 40 county court judges in Northern Ireland, 40 of them will be ready and available to do the job. I am not sure that the numbers game is as adverse as my hon. Friend suggests.

Peter Pike: Order. For the convenience of the Committee, I rule that amendment No. 6 be added to the group. It states, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
'(ca) a deputy county court judge.'.

Crispin Blunt: My hon. and learned Friend assisted me, because I conclude that it is possible for an appointment to be made to the Judicial Appointments Commission in line with amendment No. 6 to insist on a deputy county court judge, especially given the nature of the role of deputy county court judges. That is not a great point of principle, and if the Minister points out that I have misunderstood the nature of the ranking system in the judiciary in Northern Ireland and that by the nature of the appointments, people exercise those responsibilities only temporarily and are unlikely to be deputy county court judges for long, it may not be appropriate for this to be included in the Bill. I await the Minister's response.
 However, that does not detract from the fact that there is a concern that the weighting given to the lay element in the Judicial Appointments Commission is too great. If we are to sustain the independence of the judiciary and to ensure that the appointments are made on merit, it is important that the judiciary has a substantial say in the process. That is not reflected by a commission that consists of half judiciary and half lay members, especially in relation to the qualification for lay members as described in the Bill. 
 I was surprised by the restriction in clause 3(5)(c) on the qualification of lay members to sit on the commission. It struck me as extraordinarily odd that if someone had been a barrister, solicitor or justice of the peace and so had some connection with the law, but had ceased to practise, that should disbar them from sitting as a lay member of the commission. I see it as a form of qualification that they had received legal training at some point and knew something about legal issues, even though the assumption would be that they would not be practising, because if they were they would be qualified under one of the other sections.

Lembit Öpik: Is that restriction not necessary to achieve what we are discussing in line with one of the hon. Gentleman's earlier amendments on ensuring the independence of the legal profession? Would it not be hard to separate the two roles if former barristers and solicitors were members of the commission?

Crispin Blunt: Appointing people to positions of responsibility is an important responsibility of the
 Judicial Appointments Commission. If its members exercise their responsibility as lay members, their authority stems from their appointment. The fact that they have some knowledge of the system on which they are being invited to take decisions strikes me as an odd disqualification to apply. That disqualification should be removed from the Bill.
 It may turn out that the recommended lay members do not have legal qualifications. That is likely, as it would be the desired scenario and, perhaps, common sense. However, Northern Ireland is not such a large constituency of professionally qualified people of the type you would want to appoint to a Judicial Appointments Commission that one should start placing restrictions on who was available. If a solicitor, who was well regarded across all communities, wanted to be appointed, it would seem odd if they could not because they had been so unwise as to qualify as a solicitor in their youth. That restriction is absurd. I hope that the Government will consider my concerns sympathetically, not least because the Minister is a lawyer.

Seamus Mallon: I know that this was not the motivation behind the amendment, but there is a difficulty in the Liberal Democrats' amendment that says more than the amendment itself. For years I have advocated the return of justice in terms of devolution to the north of Ireland on the grounds that devolution will only grow up and be what it should be when it can take control of the most important element of its existence. That is risky; so risky that I almost adduced serious trouble, with my party and otherwise. But my views have not changed. The more I see of devolution the more I am convinced that it will only be dynamic when it takes that responsibility.
 I want to put my views in those terms. It may soften some of the things I want to say, but also ameliorate some of the others. Let us consider the three points under subsection (5). Where five people are to be nominated by the Lord Chief Justice under subsection (5)(a), there could be no suggestion that any lack would be politically motivated. Subsection (5)(b) proposes that a barrister should be nominated by the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland. The Bar of Northern Ireland would not make a political nomination. Nor would the Law Society of Northern Ireland, nor indeed would the Lord Chancellor; he would not dream of it. 
 The two people who will be charged with that under the terms of amendment No. 140, the First and Deputy First Minister in the Administration of the north of Ireland, whoever they are at that time, cannot be trusted, so the share of the power is split and and given to the Secretary of State. He would not dream of making a politically motivated decision. 
 There is a problem, although I accept that that is not the intention. I accept that many people in all parts of the community in the north of Ireland have good grounds for fearing the return of responsibility for justice. The provision is one way of dealing with that fear, but I suppose that that is how things will be for some time. The view is that the great and the good would never make political appointments, but those 
 who are elected by the people of the north of Ireland cannot be trusted not to do so. 
 Something is out of balance, although again I accept that that is not intended. I also know that this point will raise hackles: there are no non-political organisations in the north of Ireland. Are there any non-political people there? If there are, I do not know them and I have lived there for 66 years; perhaps one day I will meet them. We are now getting to the heart of one of the problems, which is that politics has been frowned on in Northern Ireland. How often have those of us who come from there heard people say of someone, ''He was a decent man. He never had anything to do with politics''? I am sure that that has been heard here, too. 
 I believe that appointments, from wherever they come, always have a political connotation. However good, noble and learned the person who makes the appointment, no one, especially in Northern Ireland, will believe that it does not have a political tinge. The reason is that, almost by definition under the Good Friday agreement and the legislation, action is required to ensure that appointments are representative. That is what the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and the Executive are about. It is a cumbersome system, but that is what representativeness is. 
 When the Law Society and the Bar Council come to appoint the person, they will consider what the other appointments might be, so that they will balance. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—God love them—will have to consider the numbers, because people will be required to represent various sections of the community. That is inevitable. It may not be the ideal way or what people would want, but that is how it is. 
 We should have the confidence not to hedge our bets on devolution. We should have the confidence in ourselves as people to take the responsibility and share it honestly, justly and openly. I think that that will happen in the political process. I do not know whether it will happen in other parts of the nominating structures, but at least if the First Minister and Deputy First Minister do not act fairly, that can be dealt with. With that accountability goes representativeness. I use that term guardedly, because whatever way the numbers go, representativeness will be required. 
 I am worried about the implication that, if we were to add one to the number of judicial appointments and subtract one from the number of lay appointments, we would somehow get a better mix. I am worried about the thought behind that, because of the use of the phrase ''type of person that we would want to appoint to such a commission''. The type of person that I should like to appoint would not necessarily have a legal background. Those with a legal background are probably part of a legal establishment that is very protective of itself. They might even be deputy county court judges, for example. Many people in the north of 
 Ireland have no legal background. They have integrity and common sense and would be able to make decisions justly and fairly. That is crucial. It is a vote of confidence in ourselves that we can be fair and just and do things properly.

Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend believe that in a society in which 95 per cent. of people associate themselves with the description Catholic or Protestant, it would be helpful to have five lay members? People will watch like hawks which grouping gets three and which gets two. There are four major political parties but there will be five lay members. Might not four be a more manageable number than five, other things being equal?

Seamus Mallon: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Four—or six, or 10—might be better. It depends on the political fallout at the time. In the election for Deputy First Minister the numbers did not stack up, and a metamorphosis had to take place. I take that point—but I do not believe that that is the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I do not view the matter in terms of Catholic or Protestant, or even in terms of Unionist or nationalist. I hate using such labels. In many ways, those terms are redundant.
 There will be many debates about the judiciary. Some people might be perceived to be Unionist who very much are not, and some might be perceived to be Catholic who might be Unionist, among other options. A handy number of labels that we can stick on people depending on the number required at any given moment in time will not work. 
 I would rather see appointed a good, strong, hard-line Unionist who would properly present a good strong Unionist point of view on that commission or other commissions, than create what we have had in the north of Ireland for 30 years—a soft belly of those who are reliable and will not rock the boat, who fall into a pattern socially, academically and in every other way, and ultimately do what they are told. 
 We have the opportunity to grasp the nettle. The question is whether we have the courage to stand on our own feet, to take on the future ourselves and do it properly, or whether we shall pass the buck again to a Secretary of State or whoever else it may be? If devolution is going to work well, that will be the cornerstone, because once justice returns as a devolved power, the fragmentation of energy and much of the other nonsense will go by the board. There will be real responsibility to be shared.

Edward Garnier: I want to make two brief points that I hope will be of assistance. I shall perch very carefully on amendment No. 4, which was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. Subsection (5)(c) says that the other members appointed to the Judicial Appointments Commission should include:
five persons who do not hold (and have never held) a protected judicial office and are not (and have never been) barristers or solicitors (so referred to as ''lay members'').
 As we know, a protected judicial office is defined under clause 2(5) and means: 
the office of Lord Chief Justice, the office of Lord Justice of Appeal or a listed judicial office.
 Under clause 3(6), that means that 30 of the 34 listed judicial officers under schedule 1 are precluded from being either judicial members, or—by virtue of their holding a protected judicial office—lay members. Whether it is fair that 30 of those office holders should be excluded all together, I leave for others to work out. I simply want to raise that issue. 
 My second point is that if we exclude from lay membership of the Judicial Appointments Commission anyone who has ever been a barrister or solicitor, the commission will be denied the assistance of schoolmasters, academics and accountants who may at some stage have qualified for the Bar or as a solicitor. Surely, the answer to the problem is not to say: 
and are not (and have never been) barristers or solicitors,
 but to specify those who never been practising barristers or practising solicitors. 
 There is a distinction between a member of the legal profession who is actively working within it—and who could therefore be biased towards the legal profession, and thus ought not to be a lay member—and one who is not. There will be Members of Parliament who qualified as barristers but who have never practised, and who would have something of value to give as effective lay members to the Judicial Appointments Commission. Those points are not hugely exciting, but they are worth making, and I leave them with the Minister for his consideration.

Des Browne: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire must be feeling fairly lonely now. On the previous group of amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh and I abandoned him. Now the hon. Gentleman has had to wave goodbye from his island to someone who is paddling away—but perhaps he has got used to that.
 The other preliminary point is that we should not rely on the arithmetic of the hon. Member for Reigate. Perhaps we can rely on him for other things, but the idea that the commission will be 50:50 lay and lawyers is far from the truth. It will consist of six judges, five of whom will be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and two lawyers—one barrister and one solicitor—which makes eight lawyers out of a total membership of 13. Not only will there be at least as many judges as lay members—indeed, there will be one more—but there will be two other lawyers, too. One of those will be there specifically to represent the Bar—I mention that particularly for the hon. and learned Member for Harborough—and the other to represent solicitors. There is therefore something to be said for disqualifying other people who have the same qualifications. Whether they have the same interests, or whether the measure should be whether they have practised, there is something to be said for not allowing those branches of the legal profession double representation by accident.

Crispin Blunt: I am concerned that the Minister has been educated too long in the school of the block vote. There should be no suggestion that the judicial members of the commission will vote as a block. They will surely take decisions as individuals on the
 merit of the cases that come in front of them, and according to their work within the commission. The issue of whether the judicial members should have a majority cannot be presented in such terms. It is much more about where the balance of skills should lie on the Judicial Appointments Commission, and I believe that that balance should give a slightly greater weighting to members of the judiciary.

Des Browne: In the words of many of my clients when I practised criminal law, ''He started it''. I was merely trying to correct the hon. Gentleman's accidental mistake of arithmetic by pointing out that a commission that consists of 13 people, eight of whom were likely to be lawyers, could not be described as 50:50 lay members and lawyers, as he described it. Now that we are talking about the same commission, perhaps I can move on.
 The other point made by the hon. Member for Reigate—I do not know whether every Committee member heard it—was that he would be interested to hear what I, as a lawyer, had to say about his arguments, because he appeared to be sticking up for the legal profession. I have never been one for jobs for the boys. As I have been an advocate of devolution all my life—particularly for Scotland, but also for any part of the United Kingdom that wants it and can improve its government with it—and as I am also an advocate of a judicial appointments commission for Scotland, it is unlikely that my transition from lawyer to Back Bencher to Minister would see me abandon that and create opportunities especially for the profession. My short experience of Northern Ireland as a Minister has shown me that there are more than enough opportunities for the legal profession there, and I do not get the sense that any member of the profession is running about looking for work. 
 There were four sets of amendments under clause 3, consisting of three groups and one set of one, but now there are three, because you have sensibly and logically added amendment No. 6 to this debate, Mr. Pike. The first set was tabled by the official Opposition and would restrict the involvement in the new commission. The second set was tabled by the Liberal Democrats and would put the Secretary of State back in the driving seat in the appointment of lay members, although I now understand its purpose more clearly. It tries to reflect more accurately the recommendations of the review, but we shall shortly consider whether that is a strong enough reason to support it, or whether the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has properly interpreted the review's recommendations, which struck a careful balance. During the consultation exercise, some argued that lay involvement had gone too far, others that it did not go far enough, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh implied.

Seamus Mallon: So that there is no misunderstanding, may I point out that was not the implication of what I said? Obviously I did not make it clear enough that, for reasons that I tried to explain, I support the Government's position.

Des Browne: I apologise sincerely to my hon. Friend. Now that I have had a few more moments for reflection, I believe that he was arguing for strong
 representation instead of re-arguing the numbers. To that extent, I agree with him; he said some things that several hon. Members would have been pleased to hear, especially about his view of the value of the devolution of criminal justice and related matters to the Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland. They are views that I, as a Minister, share—and they are shared by the majority of politicians who speak for a significant majority of the people of Northern Ireland and share their aspirations.
 There is a temptation in Northern Ireland to say, ''Both sides think I haven't got it right, so I must have got it right.'' That is a dangerous argument. It is like the phrase constantly trotted out by the people in Northern Ireland who say to me, ''You must understand, Minister, that perceptions are more important than facts.'' That, too, has become dangerous in the context of Northern Ireland politics; sometimes it would help to remind ourselves that facts are more important than perceptions. If we could get back to the facts we might have a more informed debate and not run about with individual perceptions and no possibility of ever meeting on common ground. The facts would provide that common ground, if we could agree what they are. 
 The Bill strikes the right balance because it brings to the commission the right qualifications from the viewpoint of the judiciary and of the legal profession and also provides strong lay representation. It will bring an element to the commission's considerations different from what members of the legal profession are likely to bring, whether they are judges or practising lawyers, because it will allow contributions to be made from different perspectives. One advantage is that it will allow the issue of representativeness to be addressed in the context of the commission, which is important if the people of Northern Ireland are to have confidence in it. 
 Representativeness, or reflectiveness, in the membership of the commission is an exercise that the Government have tried to bring into play in other commissions and bodies in Northern Ireland. I accept that it is a difficult exercise, but it is important, and the lay element in the commission will allow the Government to undertake it. If the proposal were diluted as the hon. Member for Reigate suggests, it would make things far more difficult, if not impossible. I shall come to the other amendments in a moment.

Lady Hermon: May I seek a clarification? I know that the Minister is happy that he is not one of the ''jobs for the boys'' brigade—I am pleased about that. Of the judicial number, how many women or members of ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland are Lord Justices of Appeal, High Court judges, county court judges, district judges or lay magistrates?

Des Browne: The hon. Lady makes my point about representativeness. To my knowledge, there are none. It is clearly part of the purpose of the new procedure for the appointment of judges to allow people from those backgrounds and those parts of the community to apply under a transparent appointments process that allows them to reach those positions. I know that
 the hon. Lady shares with me the objective that at some time in the future I, or someone else, will be able to answer that question for her—indeed, in devolved terms she herself may be able to answer it for others—in a positive way that shows progress. It is the Government's intention that the judicial appointments process will help that objective.

Edward Garnier: May I return to lay membership? The exclusion of barristers and solicitors is inexplicit; the Bill does not tell us where the barristers and solicitors are qualified. Am I right in assuming that it refers only to Northern Ireland barristers and solicitors, or does it also exclude those who qualified as barristers in Australia but who are no longer practising and happen to be resident in Northern Ireland? I will not go through the whole Commonwealth jurisdiction, but it is not unheard of for people to move around the world having qualified in a profession in one place and not to continue in that position elsewhere.
 I have a suspicion that many people in Northern Ireland who do not practise will be disappointed: simply because they qualified in Wellington or Jamaica—

Des Browne: Or Zimbabwe.

Edward Garnier: —or Zimbabwe, they will be unable to assist in the process.

Des Browne: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I do not like to disappoint people, but my reading of the provision suggests that unfortunately, it does apply to all those peripatetic non-practising lawyers who congregate in Northern Ireland awaiting jobs at the Judicial Appointments Commission. I am terribly sorry if they were misled into taking up residence in Northern Ireland in the hope of being engaged in this process.
 The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a serious point by and large, but he will have to accept from me that as the Bar and the solicitors' branch of the legal profession are explicitly represented, the exclusion of their accidental representation through the lay members' door is intentional. No matter what abilities people trained in Wellington may bring to their subject, the purpose of excluding them is not to stop people making a contribution to a debate to which they could contribute, but to make room for another voice and allow lay members in. 
 There is no doubt that the Committee has come up with a fairly long list of people who we think could make a contribution to the debate, but in doing that we would have come up with an unmanageable commission. At some stage someone has to draw a line, from experience, as to how a commission can be chaired, operating within sub-committees or however it needs to operate, within a reasonable period of time and reach conclusions. The figure that we have chosen, which was recommended advisedly, though not exclusively, by the review, is reasonable. The breakdown was reasonable because it provided opportunities for everything that I have been speaking of.

Edward Garnier: May I explain something? [Interruption.] I bow to no man in permitting the
 Minister to take the mickey out of me, and I enjoy it—as a Tory Member of Parliament I have had to get used to it. The law that this House passes more than any other is that of the unintended consequence. I wanted the Minister to be clear, because the word ''barrister'' is limited to certain jurisdictions. One could be a Ukrainian court lawyer, but one would not be a barrister. I have made the point, and I do not want to go over it again, but it is not such a futile one.

Des Browne: I accept that the hon. and learned Gentleman was making a serious point, and I did not wish to belittle it. However, these consequences are not unintended. They are designed to ensure that there is proper representation of judges and other branches of the legal profession, but also proper representation of the lay population of Northern Ireland.

Crispin Blunt: In my trawl of the documents and the review that informed this part of the Bill, I have been unable to find a recommendation requiring the non-qualification of lay members. Besides the Minister's judgment that that should be on the face of the Bill, has any other college of opinion come to that conclusion?

Des Browne: Significant parts of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will doubtless point out as we go along, are not direct reflections of the review. The interpretation of the recommendations of the review have been true and faithful. There is no specific recommendation for the non-qualification provision, if we can describe it that way, but it seems to be a natural consequence of seeking to protect the lay representation on the Judicial Appointments Commission from incursion by the legal profession, who are already well represented. There may be unintended consequences of that, and they will doubtless be the subject of a judicial review at some stage in Northern Ireland.
 Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, all seek to amend the membership of the commission in favour of the judiciary and the legal professions. They would increase the number of judicial members and decrease the lay membership, and as if that were not enough, they also seek to open the lay membership to solicitors, barristers and former judges, although not former solicitors and barristers. I may be wrong about that latter point, but the amendments would be even worse if they also applied to former solicitors and barristers. Under the hon. Gentleman's proposals there could be a commission without a single member who was not or had not been a lawyer. In amendment No. 9, which we are not debating yet, the Opposition abandon the idea that any attempt should be made to get a reasonable representation of lay members. 
 I have made it clear that I believe that it was right for the review to identify the useful contribution that lay members could make to the appointments process. Hon. Members will be aware that a similar process is under way in Scotland. If my understanding of what is happening there is correct, the commission there will have a stronger lay membership and a lay chairperson. In the Bill, we are not even going as far as they have in 
 Scotland, which—the hon. Gentleman should remember—is also part of the United Kingdom. Lay members will bring an objective non-legal view to a difficult process, which will be valuable. Their involvement is important for public confidence, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. 
 Amendments Nos. 140, 141, 142, 146 and 149 would make the Secretary of State, rather than the First and Deputy First Minister, responsible for the appointment and removal of lay members of the Judicial Appointments Commission. Before I heard the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, I was not clear what the amendments were driving at. I wondered why he wanted to retain the Secretary of State's role in judicial appointments after devolution, and I thought perhaps that he wanted the provisions to commence straight away. I understand what he is saying now, and as a consequence, I had to refresh my memory about the debate during the review. 
 Paragraph 6.104 states that it is important to keep any hint of political input out of the appointment process, but that does not mean that there is no role for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. They have been given a clear role in the other stages of the appointments process, and recommendation 80, which is about the shape of the lay membership of the Judicial Appointments Commission, states: 
The First Minister and Deputy First Minister would appoint the nominees of the Lord Chief Justice and the professions and would secure the appointment of lay members through procedures in accordance with the guidelines for public appointments (the Nolan procedures).
 That is exactly what the provisions do. They have the added benefit of creating the set of circumstances that other hon. Members have spoken of, which allow a strong lay voice, and allow the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to meet the challenges suggested by other hon. Members. I think particularly of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh.

Lady Hermon: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I would like to clarify one crucial point. What if the First Minister and Deputy First Minister cannot agree on an appointment? One or the other may end up with a veto over the appointments of the lay members.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that contribution. Our stock answer would be that we are not planning for failure—but that is about as sensible as assuming that I must be right if both sides think that I am wrong. Under devolution, cross-community voting and the operation of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister rely substantially on co-operative working between those two important members of the Executive. At least one member of the Committee could share his experience of the tensions with us, but I will not invite him to do that.
 We all know that there are tensions in Northern Ireland society. We could not ask those office holders to carry out the job, among the many that we have asked them to carry out under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, without giving them the backstop of planning for failure. That does not seem any more challenging than many of the things that we have asked them to do. We must trust devolution, trust the 
 structure and trust whoever is in those positions to understand and operate it with a view to complying with statutory requirements rather than failing.

Seamus Mallon: The Minister was asked an interesting question. I cannot imagine the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agreeing about everything—that is an understatement.
 A more fundamental point arises. Devolution in justice will not take place unless it has cross-community support, not just from two people, one called the First Minister and the other called the Deputy First Minister, but from the entire political system. Such support will not arrive on a wing and a prayer. People will want to know exactly what devolution entails before they give that cross-community support. Therefore, I imagine that there will be a long process of negotiation during which such matters will be worked out. 
 However, the Minister is right to say that the First Minster and the Deputy First Minister will appoint—

Peter Pike: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Seamus Mallon: —huge numbers of people. They thought that they could not appoint four lay people to the commission. The mind boggles.

Des Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Members of the Committee will appreciate the value of his contribution, in view of his experience.
 I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion, because the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire deserves more detailed criticism of the amendments. My interpretation is that the review was anxious to ensure that Assembly members were not appointed as lay members of the commission, and that has been provided for in paragraph 19 of schedule 2. We have been faithful to recommendation 80 in allowing the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to 
secure the appointment of lay members through procedures in accordance with the guidelines for public appointments—
 that is, the normal procedures. It is not appropriate to put in statute the requirement to follow normal procedures; they will apply in any event. 
 Another criticism of the hon. Gentleman's approach is that it betrays a surprising mistrust of the procedures that we are setting up, which will come into force after devolution, and will require some confidence in the devolution process. I know what his views on devolution are, and I am surprised that he has that regrettable lack of confidence. We do not believe that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, would appoint inappropriate lay members, nor that the Lord Chief Justice would appoint inappropriate judicial members. If we had as little confidence as the hon. Gentleman has in the proposals, we would not propose a Judicial Appointments Commission or work towards devolution in criminal justice matters at all, let alone to a target time of after the Assembly elections in 2003. We are confident that we have implemented recommendation 80 correctly. 
 Through amendment No. 6 the hon. Member for Reigate and those supporting him seek to stipulate that a deputy county court judge shall be one of the 
 judicial members of the commission. If I understood him correctly, he prays in aid, with some support from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, the number of members, which is 40. However, that would go against the review, which recommended one judicial member from each tier of the judiciary, and carefully balanced the number of legal representatives against the number of lay representations. Although the review took a broad brush and did not intend to be prescriptive, it was. Deputy county court judges are not a separate tier, any more than temporary judges of the High Court are a separate tier. They are referred to in the list in schedule 1—as, for that matter, are deputy resident magistrates, who are referred to in the Bill under their proposed new title. 
 The Government have been faithful to the review's recommendations, in that the list to which the hon. Member for Reigate referred includes an appropriate member of each tier of the judiciary, including the lay magistracy, to reflect the commission's recommendation. To be consistent with his arguments on representation based on the list, we would have to find not one more, but at least three more, representatives, because the temporary High Court judges are the same as the deputies that he seeks to include, and the deputy registered magistrates are no different in their relationship to their tier. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Crispin Blunt: This is an important issue because, although the Minister has spoken about the need for different perspectives in the make-up of the Judicial Appointments Commission, the most important perspective is judicial because it is the profession that should have the most important knowledge of the appropriate people to promote. In view of the number of people available for appointment, especially at the higher levels, the number of positions that are available for appointment and the small size of the pool from which people are drawn in Northern Ireland, it would establish the principle of independence and merit if the judicial members of the commission had more influence. It is wrong that there should be five judicial members under the chairmanship of the Lord Chief Justice, which in effect makes six, and five lay members.
 The Minister has chosen to include the members from the legal profession with the judicial members for the purposes of his arguments, which is unfair. The judiciary should have the most influence within the commission on which of its members should take up the appointments, which is why the balance of the commission is wrong. Too often our reflex response is to say that lay members must be good by definition because they are independent and supply additional qualities that a profession cannot bring. Given the appointments system under the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, it is especially important that the commission is rebalanced as I propose.

Seamus Mallon: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that professional expertise is invaluable, but what has led to this situation whereby there is not a single female judge or person from an ethnic group? That is the
 structure that the hon. Gentleman admires so much, and that I have admired so much. We must make the fundamental changes that have to be made.

Crispin Blunt: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says about outcomes. Of course everyone would want all the professions, of which the judiciary is the most important, to try as far as possible to reflect the community that they serve. However, the most important principle, as the review acknowledged, is merit. That must take priority over requiring the judiciary to be representative—which the Bill does not invite us to do.
 In taking us forward to the debate on amendment No. 9, the Minister misrepresented the arguments that I will use. I tabled the amendment to address some of the concerns that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has just expressed. 
 This is an important issue, and I shall press amendments Nos. 2 and 4 to Divisions on the assumption that if amendment No. 2 is accepted I shall wish to continue with amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. It is a matter of principle that judicial members should have a greater weight on the commission.

Lembit Öpik: In my definition, ''lay member'' means not a professional. I am not convinced that people who are expert or highly professional in their trade would be regarded as lay members. However, having had the argument, we shall all have to make our own decisions.
 Not satisfied with rejecting my offer of assistance on the previous group of amendments, the Minister now chooses to reject the offer of extra power for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This is the political revolution that we have been waiting for from a Government who claim to be inclusive. I only hope that it will spread like wildfire throughout their ranks, so that when the Prime Minister looks around aghast at all the power that is being given away to others and says, ''Where did this begin?'', we can point at the Minister and say, ''He started it.'' 
 The Minister said that I must be feeling fairly lonely. I have heard it said that it is sometimes necessary to be right and yet to feel as if one stands alone. This is not one of those occasions. 
 As the Minister rightly deduced, our efforts with the amendment were based primarily on the need for the review strategy to ensure that appointments and political influence are clearly separated. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, the structure proposed in the Bill leads inevitably to the prospect of a degree of political influence in the matter of appointments. That does not necessarily make it wrong, given that that is no different from the way in which many appointments are made at Westminster and elsewhere. 
 The inference is that if on some future occasion we find ourselves debating the issue in the House, with great concern expressed about the decisions made by a future First Minister or Deputy First Minister, we will 
 not have a right to complain. That is the consequence of the decision that we are making on devolution. We must clearly understand that we are importing into the arrangement in Northern Ireland the same danger of political appointment as exists here in the Palace of Westminster.

Seamus Mallon: I simply ask whether that might not be a much more honest approach. Should we not recognise the differences that exist, rather than making the assumption that is made elsewhere, that no political influence is used in legal appointments? Would that not be much more honest, healthy and dynamic than hiding behind the notion that somehow or other, if senior judges do something there are no political implications?

Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point. I think it genuinely beneficial to have on the record the fact that we accept the dangers that he has acknowledged, and which I, too, raised. If that is what we want, we should then make a positive decision to treat like with like and accept the potential consequences at some future point. Although I am concerned about how long we are taking to debate these amendments, given the other business that we have, the feeling of the Committee seems pretty clear, and it therefore seems to have been a worthwhile debate, although I accept that the amendments as they stand were open to the criticism that they have received.
 As I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh—I mean this completely genuinely—I remembered why I am occasionally so impressed with our Committee structure. The hon. Gentleman added genuine value to the debate, highlighting the issues that we have discussed from a position of experience. That is the priceless quality of a Committee such as this, when it works effectively. I want to thank him for providing a clarity that has deepened my understanding of a point that I had only grasped implicitly. Now I grasp explicitly the point about accepting the danger of the structure but not necessarily rejecting the structure as a consequence of that danger. 
 My conclusion from our debate is that devolution does not take away the risk. Devolution requires a cost-benefit analysis and a risk analysis, but at the end of the day, although we are conscious of the risks that we take, we should not expect the devolution settlement to eliminate something that, in 1,000 years of Parliament, we have failed to eliminate here. Although I shall withdraw the amendment, I hope that we have achieved something that I did not really expect from these amendments: a deeper understanding of the consequences of what we are doing here. I hope that in the light of the debate, we will bear that valuable insight in mind as we seek to maintain the balance between providing the Assembly with the powers that it deserves and acknowledging that that sometimes requires us to take a few risks. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 2, line 29, leave out ''five'' and insert ''six''.—[Mr. Blunt.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 16.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 2, line 34, leave out '(and have never held)'.—[Mr. Blunt.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 17.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Stringer.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Seven o'clock till Thursday 31 January at half-past Nine o'clock.